Implementing a new framework for sustainable development: towards more capable institutions

1. Implementing a new framework for sustainable development: towards more capable institutions Richard Manning Seoul, 7 October 2013

2. Implementation as a missing dimension • Beijing, 1994: ‘Most of the goals set out in the Nairobi Forward-looking Strategies for the Advancement of Women [ten years earlier] have not been achieved.’ • 1996: OECD: ‘these goals must be pursued country by country through individual approaches that reflect local conditions and locally owned development strategies.’ • 2009:RM Study for DIIS: ‘Not enough is known about [the impact of the MDG framework] on policies and resource allocation in developing countries. Evidence from Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers shows a good deal of rhetorical support for selected aspects of the framework, but translation into actual resource-allocation appears to be weak in many cases.’ • 2013: IDS Bulletin: ‘The MDG framework has had some real world traction in some circumstances, but little in others, with relative aid dependence (both of the country and of the specific MDG) maybe a marker of how significant this traction has been’. Role of UNDP also highlighted. • So: Korean Government’s attention to this dimension and the continued engagement of UNDP are very welcome.

3. Institutions Matter • Public policies will be central to success • Public service delivery will be important in many (but not all) areas • Effectiveness of public institutions (at both national and local level) therefore vital • But major concerns over this………. • ………..and poor record of institution-building • Donor support often ineffective • And it’s not just a Southern issue (eg international taxation stretches capacity in all countries)

4. Building Competent Institutions: Three Levels • Individual staff competencies matter (level 3) • So education systems and targeted training matter • But staff cannot be effective if overall institution is poorly managed or cannot retain staff (level 2) • Hence much traditional T/A achieves few sustainable results • And institution cannot be effective if operating environment badly flawed (level 1) • Hence even soundly-designed institution-wide reforms often fail

5. Incentives • At each level, incentives are central to performance and can create either virtuous or vicious circles • At level 1, governments need to expose institutions to effective scrutiny [accountability and audit; Parliamentary scrutiny; independent evaluation; transparency; whistle-blowing; anti-corruption]. Commitment from the top of Government matters! • At level 2, top managers need to set clear objectives [hopefully related to locally-owned post-215 goals], delegate and hold to account, monitor and evaluate • At level 3, ownership of objectives, appropriate skills, and constructive performance review needed • But beware of simple answers…..

6. How to Reduce Teacher Absenteeism in Primary Schools in Uganda? • Joint research project between: Makerere University and World Vision in Uganda, Oxford University, Georgetown Public Policy Institute, and University of East Anglia. JacobusCilliers, Ibrahim Kasirye, Clare Leaver, Pieter Serneels and Andrew Zeitlin. • Tested four schemes: monitoring by Head Teachers or Parents, with either financial bonus or reporting by SMS.

7. IMPROVING TEACHER ATTENDANCE USING A LOCALLY MANAGED MONITORING SCHEME: Emerging Findings • Local monitoring improves teacher attendance but only when the head teacher is responsible and there are financial incentives for teachers . • All monitors understate teacher absenteeism and parents more so than head teachers. • Local monitoring schemes can improve teacher presence at relatively low cost. However, quality of reporting may be a challenge. Preliminary evidence from a further pilot scheme suggests that parents can play an important role by auditing monitoring by head teachers. • Shows local accountability systems are complex, with competing incentives not just for teachers but also for monitors . Monitors care about school performance but have to balance this against questions of morale and the legitimate challenges that face teachers and against time and effort required for effective oversight. • Localized accountability systems are complex, and we are just beginning to learn how technological advances should be matched with the human challenges facing teachers, managers, and parents. • So: much scope for experiment.

8. Economic dimension also matters • Governments need to be competitive employers of their own talent, while keeping public paybill affordable • May imply smaller public sector with more wage differentiation – not a road to popularity!

9. Thank You!